• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Spare EMUs as a contingency

Status
Not open for further replies.

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
9,597
Location
Croydon
Occurs to me that more and more the electrification of the GW and NW will be left high and dry *IF* the intruduction of new stock for Thameslink is delayed. I think this involves a new signalling system so the risk is piling up as it is for crossrail. The WCML never achieved what it was supposed to do so I fear delay or compromise might appear for Thameslink or Crossrail.

The delay for Thameslink has already made it more attractive to order 130 extra coaches for Southern. I wonder what else could be sensibly ordered ?. The reasurance for the ROSCOS is that the newer EMUs will inevitably get used sooner rather than later. The worst that can happen is that older EMUs (508s, 313s) lose residual value but could then be affordable as spares/backup. I am clinging to the ideal that no more DMUs should be built btw.

To support this we really need to get to the point where in the UK we are looking at what to electrify next rather than just whether to electrify at all. I fear that electrification will stutter to a halt after GW, NW and transpennine electrification are complete. History will quite likely repeat itself - instead this time we need a rolling program of electrification. Also we are only now on the brink of having our first domestic high speed rail network in 2026 (linking two cities rather than on the back of international). This will be 40 years after I travelled to the South of France from Paris on their high speed line !. We are not slightly late we are TOTALLY BACKWARD.

I cannot help feeling that our domestic ralway manufacturing industry is handicapped by the perception that they can only cater for the quirky British railway. We exported steam engines when the rest of the world wanted what we had. Since then we have been clinging on to the past. Since the 1960s we continued to build outdated steam engines when our neighbours were switching to electric and diesel traction. We then replaced them early (but after our neighbours). We then only replaced steam with diesel mainly !. We are not yet at the stage we should have been at in the 60s or 70s. We dont have the mentality for a prospective build of EMUs while we can still build them ourselves. And before someone talks about EU rules - dont be a mug.

Any thoughts on what we could usefully build and perhaps more importantly how to achieve a sea change in attitude to electrification ?.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

ukrob

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2009
Messages
1,810
Just how much electrification do you think can be done at once? It will be a rolling programme. Once an artery is done, the business case for branches off it increase - for example Hull and Scarborough after TPE is done.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
This has been a concern for over a year now. Liverpool-Manchester electrification is supposed to be complete before the 319s are cascaded and the 319s were supposed to be fully refurbished before being transferred to the North West.

However, it recently emerged that some of the 317s had actually dropped out of the East Anglia franchise following the introduction of the 379s. These were originally intended to directly/indirectly provide capacity for C2C in the rolling stock programme but that plan has been cancelled. NX managed to secure their short term future in the Anglia franchise but Abeillo will not be taking on the additional units, so they will become spares.
 

zn1

Member
Joined
3 Sep 2011
Messages
435
i suspect these 317's will be snapped up by some old Toc....superb go anywhere electric units
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Virgin West Coast, run them from Birmingham to Scotland...

More realistically, can Northern have them for the Chat Moss Phase I and Phase II opening for services to Wigan and Liverpool off Victoria and the Airport - Liverpool service.
 

Peter Sarf

Established Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
9,597
Location
Croydon
Just how much electrification do you think can be done at once? It will be a rolling programme. Once an artery is done, the business case for branches off it increase - for example Hull and Scarborough after TPE is done.

I dont expect more to be done simultaneously - even if it is all long overdue. The infills that follow on are what I hope for. But everytime in the past the follow ons have not happened. Not much happened after the East Coast Mainline and the skilled teams were lost iirc.

Mind you as more of the important bits get done then the infills are more obvious. Doing Liverpool-Manchester makes TPE a bit more obvious and bingo the ball HAS started rolling. As you say the bits East of the ECML might then be tempting enough (but compare with Cardiff-Swansea). But we need more bigger projects as well. For example Midland Mainline which has the advantage that it is between other main electrified routes and so makes NE-SW tempting to electrify from Birmingham to Edinburgh. Then bi-modes start to be usefull for that.

Great western electrification does not tempt any infills but is a decent amount of electrification on its own. Its telling, however, that Cardiff to Swansea is even considered for NOT being electrified and that is not a good sign :oops:.
 

Big Chris

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2009
Messages
144
Location
Norfolk
Virgin West Coast, run them from Birmingham to Scotland...

More realistically, can Northern have them for the Chat Moss Phase I and Phase II opening for services to Wigan and Liverpool off Victoria and the Airport - Liverpool service.
could the 317s work in multiple with Northern's 321s?
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
could the 317s work in multiple with Northern's 321s?

Electrically, don't know, maybe...

Physically, the're a long way away by electrified line, the nearest links being via Edinburgh or the North London Line ;) (Assuming they'd be based out of Longsight) they could not work in multiple with any Longsight EMUs (323s)
 

dubscottie

Member
Joined
4 Apr 2010
Messages
1,013
All units from 313 to 323 were (once upon a time) able to work in multiple (unlike nowadays).

Over the years, with each TOC doing their own thing I am surprised anything still works together!

We could do with a new from of the RCH. Standardize Coupler heights, types, MU working etc
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
BR had standardised couplers but still ended up with three or more different electrical compatibilities.

Northern published a list a couple of months back of which would be the first services switched over to EMU didnt they, you could probably top up how many units would be needed in the first year by looking at that.
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,611
Mind you as more of the important bits get done then the infills are more obvious. Doing Liverpool-Manchester makes TPE a bit more obvious and bingo the ball HAS started rolling. As you say the bits East of the ECML might then be tempting enough (but compare with Cardiff-Swansea). But we need more bigger projects as well. For example Midland Mainline which has the advantage that it is between other main electrified routes and so makes NE-SW tempting to electrify from Birmingham to Edinburgh. Then bi-modes start to be usefull for that.

The Network Rail Electrification RUS states that the MML electrification case has a good case ("Positive financial case over appraisal period (Effectively infinite socio-economic BCR)") and that once the MML is done, the Cross Country Electrification has a BCR of a rather impressive 5.1.

Table 6.5 seems to be almost like a shopping list, 3 of 8 ticked off so far!
 

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
BR had standardised couplers but still ended up with three or more different electrical compatibilities.

Northern published a list a couple of months back of which would be the first services switched over to EMU didnt they, you could probably top up how many units would be needed in the first year by looking at that.

Don't have a link do you?
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Of course any talk of a 323+317 or 323+319 combination being used at Northern would probably only be for ECS moves. If any EMUs are doubled up in service it would be 323+323 due to platform lengths but in reality 4 car EMUs are the longest electrically operated services that we'll see on services under normal circumstances.
 

northwichcat

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
32,692
Location
Northwich
Until they realise theres still shed tonnes of pax being left on the platforms at Salford and Bolton every morning ;)

If the next franchise goes to Abeillo/Serco even then they won't add extra capacity, unless TfGM or DfT give them extra money.
 

Nym

Established Member
Joined
2 Mar 2007
Messages
9,784
Location
Somewhere, not in London
Who would add extra capacity to the route though? VRG? First? NX? Arriva / DB? Go Ahead Group?

There is a lot of supressed demand all day from Bolton, a lot of public opinion is "if they where longer so I could get a seat I'd use the train, but I use the bus cos I get a seat"
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,214
Location
UK
Its a shame we dont have mk1/2's and locos that could run on services that used to be LHCS, but lost much capacity (and patronage) when their 4/5 car locos where replaced with 2 car sprinters :/
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
18,051
Location
Reston City Centre
Who would add extra capacity to the route though? VRG? First? NX? Arriva / DB? Go Ahead Group?

I think that the question is whether its profitable to provide additional capacity or not - if not then subsidy would be required.

It may be that electrification means it'll be easier to bring in additional resources (e.g. invest in new EMUs), of course, and a longer franchise may encourage investment (in the early years), but it really comes down to the profitability of more/longer trains (rather than one company being significantly better than another.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,076
Location
Redcar
Its a shame we dont have mk1/2's and locos that could run on services that used to be LHCS, but lost much capacity (and patronage) when their 4/5 car locos where replaced with 2 car sprinters

Which services would those be? I was under the impression one of BR's main motivations in Sprinterisation was to replace 4/5 carriage loco services that were carting around fresh air with smaller but higher frequency train services to both stimulate more demand and also act as a more efficient use of limited resources.
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Which services would those be? I was under the impression one of BR's main motivations in Sprinterisation was to replace 4/5 carriage loco services that were carting around fresh air with smaller but higher frequency train services to both stimulate more demand and also act as a more efficient use of limited resources.

Aye, but you're forgetting that demand has increased significantly on certain lines since BR times - If we could get something similar to the Fife Circle train and to an extent, the new Sellafield DRS working for some of the major cities, even if it is just in the peaks, it would help greatly.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,076
Location
Redcar
Aye, but you're forgetting that demand has increased significantly on certain lines since BR times

Oh I don't disagree that it would be useful now, I was just questioning that the introduction of Sprinter's back in the 80s caused a loss of patronage on some services. I think I've said elsewhere that whilst the mantra of 'short trains more frequently' worked well in the 80s now we really need a mantra of 'long trains and frequently as well!'.

Though perhaps on second reading I misinterpreted what Yew actually meant :oops:
 

142094

Established Member
Joined
7 Nov 2009
Messages
8,789
Location
Newcastle
Oh I don't disagree that it would be useful now, I was just questioning that the introduction of Sprinter's back in the 80s caused a loss of patronage on some services. I think I've said elsewhere that whilst the mantra of 'short trains more frequently' worked well in the 80s now we really need a mantra of 'long trains and frequently as well!'.

Though perhaps on second reading I misinterpreted what Yew actually meant :oops:

One of the reasons I don't particularly like Voyagers is the fact they replaced HSTs and LHCS (47s and mk3s IIRC) between Newcastle and the South West - so a lot less capacity. However, they (Virgin XC at the time) said service frequency had doubled - which just about made up for the reduction in capacity! Plus it doesn't help that nowadays XC services run from as far north as Aberdeen and Glasgow Central.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,076
Location
Redcar
One of the reasons I don't particularly like Voyagers is the fact they replaced HSTs and LHCS (47s and mk3s IIRC) between Newcastle and the South West - so a lot less capacity. However, they (Virgin XC at the time) said service frequency had doubled - which just about made up for the reduction in capacity! Plus it doesn't help that nowadays XC services run from as far north as Aberdeen and Glasgow Central.

I agree with you there, personally at least I don't like Voyagers because they're so short if they were a reasonable length (6-8 cars) I wouldn't have any issue at all with them.

I guess VXCs mistake was to not realise that if you increase the frequency from 1tph or less (and not at the same time each hour either) to 2tph would cause a pretty significant jump in demand. It seem to be something that nearly always happens, increase the frequency significantly and more people will use the service.
 

Anvil1984

Established Member
Joined
28 Aug 2010
Messages
1,513
Just the usual caveat about Virgin wanting to extend the Voyagers but weren't allowed same as TPE having the order and train size cut down for the 185s
 

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
7,214
Location
UK
Im guessing with the way our system works, some multi purpose pax/freight locos, and some modern tso's couldnt be bought for routes that would be worked by 3 car 170's, 4 car 158's ect?
 

route:oxford

Established Member
Joined
1 Nov 2008
Messages
4,949
All depends on whether it is worthwhile to do.

There was a bit of a rumour around Oxford that the University Pension Scheme was considering investing in the new Rolling Stock for the GWML.

I could see the benefit of doing so. It's an asset that would last for 4-5 decades with guaranteed income durng that period.
 

WatcherZero

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2010
Messages
10,272
Northern published a list a couple of months back of which would be the first services switched over to EMU didnt they, you could probably top up how many units would be needed in the first year by looking at that.


Sorry had a look but cant find it, Northern initial plan for the introduction of electric services (subject to revision) was something loosely like:
2013 1tph Manchester Piccadilly to Wigan (2tph in peak)
2014 2tph Manchester to Liverpool, 2tph Liverpool to Wigan (one fast one slow)
2015 1tph Liverpool-Blackpool via Wigan

Edit: Could have been 3tph Manchester to Liverpool (2 slow, 1 fast) but I think it was 2tph.
 
Last edited:

Class377/5

Established Member
Joined
19 Jun 2010
Messages
5,594
Sorry had a look but cant find it, Northern initial plan for the introduction of electric services (subject to revision) was something loosely like:
2013 1tph Manchester Piccadilly to Wigan (2tph in peak)
2014 2tph Manchester to Liverpool, 2tph Liverpool to Wigan (one fast one slow)
2015 1tph Liverpool-Blackpool via Wigan

Edit: Could have been 3tph Manchester to Liverpool (2 slow, 1 fast) but I think it was 2tph.

Cheers. So it's not actually that great a number of services then? 8 tph in 2015?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top